There is surprisingly little authority concerning the nature of a defendant's opportunity to be heard pursuant to CPL 510.20. According to People v Stevens ( 133 Misc.2d 407 [City Ct, Oswego County 1986]) and People v Torres ( 112 Misc.2d 145 [Sup Ct, NY County 1981]), an adversary evidentiary hearing is not required on an initial application for bail or recognizance. At arraignment, in addition to the presentation of an accusatory instrument, defendant's NYSID sheet and the report of the Criminal Justice Agency, a hearing on an initial application for bail or recognizance pursuant to CPL 510.20 customarily consists of the presentation of facts and legal argument by prosecution and defense counsel, and counsel's responses to questioning by the court.
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the proceeding is dismissed. Under the facts of this case, we conclude that the habeas corpus court exceeded the narrow scope of the review powers available to it, and erred in substituting its discretion for that of the County Court (see, People ex rel. Rosenthal v Wolfson, 48 N.Y.2d 230). The County Court properly increased the defendant's bail pursuant to CPL 530.12 (11) (b) (see, People vStevens, 133 Misc.2d 407). Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.